Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. In the intervening nights of 18/19th October, 1988 while family members were fast asleep, miscreants having gained their access in inner apartment of house of Banti Lal Prasad, P.W. 7, assaulted house inmates, coerced family members, scuffled with some of the house inmates, removed house belongings which include cash, ornaments and wearing apparels, television set, golden ring etc. and decamped with the booty, and while retreating also resorted to firing. The dacoity was committed also in adjacent house of Ram Deyal Mahto. Shortly on tip off, the police visited house of Banti Lal Prasad, recorded his fardbeyan, seized some wooden substance, noticed marks of violence at the place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, and on conclusion of investigation laid chargesheet before the court. In the eventual trial, that followed, the State examined nine witnesses who were house inmates of both houses, where dacoities were committed at that night, and were witnesses to the seizure of incriminating objects from the place of occurrence. Three witnesses were also examined as court witnesses who simply brought on the record some documents about electric connection in the house of Banti Lal Prasad. 2. The defence of the appellants before the court below and this court had been that of innocence and they ascribed their false implication due to criminal cases instituted by Nathuni Mahto against Banti Lal Prasad and one Uma Shankar, cousin brother of Nathuni Mahto. The defence too examined two witnesses ostensibly to counter accusations attributed to the appellants and to bring some documents on the record suggesting institutions of police cases. Other defence witness was put in the witness box only to counter assertion made by Banti Lal Prasad and other witnesses, about identification of appellants in the electric light. The trial court, however, on consideration of probative value of testimony of witnesses, while negativing plea of innocence of the appellants recorded finding of guilt under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. A brief resume of testimony of witnesses may be discussed with brevity to appreciate contentions raised. Reiterating his earliest version, Banti Lal Prasad, P.W. 7, who was maker of the fardbeyan, states that when he came from outside and went to sleep, three miscreants flashed torch light on him. 3. A brief resume of testimony of witnesses may be discussed with brevity to appreciate contentions raised. Reiterating his earliest version, Banti Lal Prasad, P.W. 7, who was maker of the fardbeyan, states that when he came from outside and went to sleep, three miscreants flashed torch light on him. When he questioned them, one of them, pierced weapon in his abdomen. He also noticed 8/10 persons standing outside door of the house variously armed with weapons. He had also scuffle with the miscreants. The miscreants had removed from his house, a television set, wearing apparels, wrist watch, cash, ornaments etc. They also assaulted other house inmates. He rendered his fardbeyan before the police at the place of occurrence. Narrations almost in similar term and veins had been made about identification of appellants, also by Ram Deyal Mahto, P.W. 1, Ram Pavitra Mahto, P.W. 2 and S. Prasad, P.W. 5 during commission of dacoity. As for P.W. 1, he claims identification of appellants in flash of torch, light held by the miscreants. Identification of appellants was claimed by P.W. 2 both in electric light and flash of torch light. P.W. 3 claimed their identifiction in electric light that was burning in the house, and both P.Ws. 5 and 7 had claimed identification of appellants both in the flash of torch light and also electric light. 4. The argument, which with stress was sought to be made on behalf of the appellants was that apart from the fact that assertion made by witnesses about identification of the appellants either in electric light or in the flash of torch light is conspicuously wanting in fardbeyan of Banti Lal Prasad, assertion made by them about identification of the appellants in these sources of light, had been seriously challenged by the defence, there being no such parallel statement made before police about identification of appellants either in the flash of torch light or in the electric light. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants was resisted on behalf of the State stating, inter alia, that since witnesses without margin of error were making emphatic assertion at trial about identification of the appellants, significance of omission of source of light in the earlier version of Banti Lal Prasad or in statement of other witnesses, rendered before the police during investigation has all lost its significance. 5. 5. Yet contentions are raised that if narration made by Banti Lal Prasad, P.W. 7, was to be given any credence, it was acknowledged in no uncertain terms by him that Nathuni Mahto had instituted Riga P.S. Case No. 20 of 1988 against him on 15th February, 1988. My attention has also been drawn to acknowledgment made by this witness about Uma Shankar too, cousin brother of Nathuni Mahto, instituting Riga P.S. case no. 26 of 1998 against him and also his brother on 1st March, 1988. This witness also states about institution of a police case i.e. Riga P.S. Case No. 45 of 1980 on 23rd March, 1988 against Nathuni Mahto, and also pendency of a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. between them, and in backdrop of litigations pending between the parties, learned counsel would urge that regard being had to the fact that Nathuni Mahto was well known to Banti Lal Prasad, he being not only neighbour but agnate also. It was quite unlikely that he would venture to commit such an offence without taking precaution for concealment of his identity. Drawing my attention to the fardbeyan of Banti Lal Prasad and also his evidence, learned counsel would submit that though age of Nathuni Mahto was assessed by witness to be 45 years, miscreants were quite young. My attention has also been drawn to the assessment of age of the appellant made by Court below under Section 313 Cr.P.C, which shows that age of the appellant was assessed to be 45 years, and hence it is urged that though miscreants were suggested to be of young age, assessment of age made by the court below would negate the prosecution accusation about miscreants to be of young look. Though learned counsel wanted to dig a hole in the prosecution case on these premises, it all depends upon the physical built of a person as to how he looks. It is not very uncommon that a person even in advanced age, due to good physique, looks younger than his age. Though cases and cross-cases are shown to be pending between the parties, while that may be a cause of false implication, that may also mobilise a person to commit offence. It is not very uncommon that a person even in advanced age, due to good physique, looks younger than his age. Though cases and cross-cases are shown to be pending between the parties, while that may be a cause of false implication, that may also mobilise a person to commit offence. Even Investigating Officer who visited the place of occurrence shortly after incident had noticed broken woods, marks of violence on the door planks and house belonging in disorder, and that impliedly suggests commission of some offence in the house at that night. 6. The last argument that was canvassed at bar on behalf of the appellants was that since occurrence took place in the year 1988 and the appellants had suffered trauma of protracted prosecution tor 15 years and also that they suffered incarceration for more than seven months, that mitigating circumstance too deserves consideration by the Court, while awarding sentence to them, in case finding of guilt recorded by court below is upheld by this Court. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lakshman Prasad vs. The State of Bihar reported in A.I.R. 1981 SC 1388 and it was submitted that narration made by witnesses with sustained consistency was not the only criterion for consideration of guilt, if circumstance of the case failed to persuade the Court about bona fide of accusation. However, l find that the reliance placed on decision of the Apex Court was quite misconceived for the simple reason that in that case appellant was quite affluent and aiso a doctor and that was also a circumstance taken by Court, that regard being had to the status and also financial condition of the appellant it was most unlikely for him to venture to commit such offence at the risk of the prosecution. 7. Having given my anxious and deepest consideration to the evidences and also facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the finding of guilt recorded by trial court was based on meticulous appreciation of evidences available on the record which did not merit interference. 7. Having given my anxious and deepest consideration to the evidences and also facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the finding of guilt recorded by trial court was based on meticulous appreciation of evidences available on the record which did not merit interference. However, considering the fact that the prosecution was launched against appellants in the year 1988 and they suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for about 15 years and also that they suffered incarceration for more than seven months, while finding of guilt is upheld, the sentence is reduced to five years, and with this modification in sentence, the appeal is dismissed.